Do we prevent somebody being hurt by superstition or faith by rejecting and challenging those things? 

Is it mistaken to support organised religion in membership or donations?

If people do good because they are human, not because God prompts them then is it right to risk giving God any credit when they alone own their good?

 


THE GOSPELS DO NOT TRY TO COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER

The Christians have a book called the Bible which is supposed to be the word of God, in other words, it was authored by God through men. It consists of the Old and New Testaments. True Christians teach that the Bible is infallible for God can't make mistakes.

The Christians think that the four gospels are the centre of the Bible but in fact it is the Jewish Law the first five books of the Bible.
 
They are forced to admit that the Bible contains parts which are unclear. There are far more interpretations of the Bible among Christians than there are religious sects. This is because of the lack of clarity. The Christians have books in defence of the Christian lie that there is no error in the Bible but say some passages are obscure. One of them is When Critics Ask, (Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe, Victor Books, Illinois ,1992) which admits that there are unclear parts in the Bible (page 18, 40). Yet these books try to make out that there are no errors in the Bible. The authors only admit the obscurity for they are forced to and will look stupid or deceitful if they don't admit it. But lack of clarity proves that the Bible makes errors for lack of clarity is an error. It is just as serious as a contradiction. A contradiction says one thing and says the other as well. So it tells you nothing. So does lack of clarity. Christians have been told this for centuries and they refuse to hear. Also, if the Bible contradicts itself about say when Jesus did something it proves that it is accusing God of making a mistake. It is doing that just as much if there is a lack of clarity. Lack of clarity contradicts the Bible claim that God does not make mistakes or that God is almighty and all-knowing. Contradiction in the Bible does that too. Lack of clarity proves the Bible is not the word of God. The Bible is supposed of speak of three, Father and Son and Holy Spirit and yet it says there is only one God. That is hardly clarity and is a possible contradiction. The Christians speculate it means there is one it as regards God and three whos or three persons in one God which may make no sense for they admit that they don't understand this.
 
It says a lot about Christians when they don't see the Bible saying that God commanded the Jews to stone adulterous people to death as in capital punishment, commanding Jesus to accept crucifixion and a degrading death, saying people deserve to suffer for all eternity in Hell and the Bible declaration that doubting God's word is the ultimate sin as errors. That is heartless. No truly good person pretends that these are not errors and that the Bible saying Abraham did such and such and then saying the opposite would be an error!
 
It is common for even orthodox religious scholars these days to admit that the New Testament is not fully correct. They even say that the gospels are not history as we understand the word (page 31, Jesus Hypotheses; page 56, The Jesus Event). They often admit that the originals were tampered with. Catholicism no longer regards the gospels as biographies and the Pontifical Bible Commission adopted this view in 1964 and accepted many other of the discoveries of modern Bible scholars (page 105, Jesus Hypotheses). Some will even admit that they cannot be sure that the gospels we have are a perfect match for the originals (page 78, The Jesus Event). There was no point in Jesus promising that not a dot would be lost from the Law of Moses and that his own words would not pass away when he failed to supernaturally see to it that everlasting proof that no rewriting had taken place would take place. Some reject the argument that the gospels are fiction for their stories were written for the edification of the people on the grounds that the stories can still be true even if they are just meant to inspire us (eg page 174, Jesus and the Four Gospels). This is possible up to a point but the possibility is eliminated in this case for the gospels churn out the same old thing much of the time and share stories. As for being inspiring most of the material is anything but and a lot of it is plain nasty and unnatural. The stories had to be made up when they had so little edification material to go on.


EVANGELICAL DISCORD
 
Each of the four gospels claims to be the only true one. Every one considers the others unauthorative.

What if the authors didn’t know of one another’s books? Each still thought his own book was the only true one.

Here are the proofs:

They contradict one another – often purposely. Testimonies full of contradictions are no good so when you contradict something you want to discredit it. Even the seeming contradictions make no difference for they still look like contradictions and you need a big brain to dissolve them and even then the author might have meant them as contradictions of some rivals’ work. The gospellers would not have had the skills to see if they were contradictions or not so they indicate that each gospeller intended to contradict the others and if it didn’t work it was a mistake.
 
The gospels disagree on things like how many angels there were at the tomb of Jesus after his body vanished. Christians say that one gospel knowing of two angels being there and another knowing only of one doesn’t mean that the latter thought there couldn’t have been another angel. This is rubbish. The gospels were written for ordinary people. They wouldn’t have been expected to figure out these “explanations”. They would take it to mean that one gospel had two angels and another had one and no more. The rule that you interpret a book according to how it would have appeared to its readers back then is totally ignored when it suits the Christians.

Each gospel claims to contain sufficient proof that Jesus was indeed the revelation of the Lord. Matthew and Luke obviously agreed that Mark was not enough when they wrote more than he did. They even selected a number of the same stories from one another and changed and “corrected” them so they were against one another. The main proof for their Christian faith was Jesus’ resurrection and accordingly the central purpose of the gospels was to vindicate it. Yet each gospel has different details and makes a sad effort with the resurrection. John was the only gospel that offered the nearest to evidence (though not quite if you have a really close look) that Jesus was truly dead with the spear in the side tale. Omissions are not usually denials but in this case they are. When a gospel sets out to convince and says nothing of the things that would do so which are found in other sources it must omit them for they were never heard of or because they are provably false. To accept all four gospels is to deny the divine inspiration of the lot.

In Matthew Jesus asserts that he revealed everything he learned from his Father meaning that he reveals Jesus in his gospel in all the essentials. You don’t put in a quote like that with half the stuff left out. It is denying the inspiration of Mark which tells less than Matthew though Matthew depended on Mark. Matthew’s quote need not imply that he considers his gospel to be divinely inspired but that he considers Jesus to be divinely inspired.

JESUS FORBADE GOSPELS

When Jesus rounded on a man for calling him not good man but good teacher he was clearly denying his own infallibility.  Predictably that happens in the earliest gospel Mark.  He was not infallible God yet.  The mythmakers had not got that far yet. 

When the Jews suggested that Jesus’ exorcisms were just tricks of the Devil, Jesus said they were not for Satan could not cast out Satan and destroy his own kingdom. This tells us that the Devil cannot have a kingdom without possessing people which implies that most people must be demon-possessed. Since he tempts all he must possess all for when he is that close to everybody there is nothing stopping him from wanting to possess all and perhaps getting nearly all. The Church used fear and terror to derange people and manipulate them so that they hardly knew what was real so we cannot put any confidence in the gospels even if the Church told good lies. Jesus would not want us to believe in the gospels when the Devil was so powerful. Well, that is assuming he was not taking people for fools and didn’t believe in the Devil at all. You would never know who belongs to Satan and who does not for he hides his true nature so the gospellers cannot be trusted to bring us to God. If Jesus was the Son of God he would forbid us to trust them. Jesus then himself declared the gospels uncanonical. They were not inspired by God.

Jesus knew the Devil could cast out demons under certain circumstances for he would only be sending them to somebody else anyway. Jesus lied. Whoever is not against the Devil is for him. The gospels themselves accidentally claim that they are not of divine origin and so they cannot be trusted.